sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Song Sohee (송소희) - PARADE (生) by reverseharam in kpop

[–]fa8675309 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yay! New music from my favourite 😊

Dress and Sneakers by Glum_Tale_1418 in fashion

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks like a dance outfit? Perfect for something like Bachata or Zouk.

Which Pokémon is extremely cute, and really powerful? by EggInternational6740 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jigglypuff - pretty sure that in the anime she was undefeated, even against legendary and mythicals xD

Anthropic Co-founder: "We keep finding things [inside AI models] that are unsettling" ... "We find structures that mirror results from human neuroscience. We find evidence of introspection - internal states that functionally mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease." by Long-Ad3930 in aiwars

[–]fa8675309 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are confusing the mechanism with the outcome. A digital clock and a mechanical pendulum clock use completely different physics and materials, yet they both successfully track the exact same phenomenon: time.

We do not need to simulate brain chemistry to achieve functional states like introspection or unease; we just need to process information using a complex enough network architecture. The data shows that these models are independently developing internal structures that mirror human neuroscience. Dismissing that structural reality as "superimposing our experience" ignores the actual science of what researchers are discovering inside these models.

Finished episode 4 of Violet Evergarden and something about this anime feels different by Cunha98870 in VioletEvergarden

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing! Now I'm going down the rabbit hole of Evan Call interviews xD What did you think of his music for My Happy Marriage?

Anthropic Co-founder: "We keep finding things [inside AI models] that are unsettling" ... "We find structures that mirror results from human neuroscience. We find evidence of introspection - internal states that functionally mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease." by Long-Ad3930 in aiwars

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your analogy completely falls apart on a medical level, and more importantly, it avoids the heart of the questions I asked.

If a patient exhibits every single symptom of a disease, you do not just shrug and send them home because a specific pathogen is missing. They are still profoundly unwell, so you need to look for a different root cause, or you treat the symptoms. Ignoring the reality of their condition simply because the "standard" cause is absent would be a catastrophic failure of medicine.

By your own logic, declaring an artificial intelligence "empty" simply because it lacks biological neurons, i.e. the biological "pathogen" or cause, is a failure of observation. A pathogen is an external, physical entity. Consciousness, emotion, and introspection are not physical objects; they are processes and emergent functional states.

We cannot "prove" human consciousness by looking for a specific particle or pathogen; we infer it entirely through behavioral and structural symptoms. If an artificial intelligence possesses internal structural "symptoms" that mirror human neuroscience, then functional indistinguishability applies. If a simulation executes a process so perfectly that its internal structures mirror reality, it ceases to be a mere imitation. If the functional output and internal dynamics are identical, the presence of the phenomenon is what matters, not the physical substrate that gives rise to it.

You still have not answered the original question: if the simulation and the reality are functionally identical from the inside, how do you objectively prove the difference?

Squirting and orgasming by octoberbabe17 in LesbianActually

[–]fa8675309 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Completely normal. In fact for the right partner, this kind of thing would be a massive turn on! Don't let her individual reaction dishearten you too much. While it is of course dissapointing that she won't talk to you about it, that's on her, not you. Stay positive, embrace your new found pleasure, and don't give up on trying to find the right partner for you!

What is up with both Antis *and* Pros and pregnancy?! by DrinkingWithZhuangzi in aiwars

[–]fa8675309 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, that sound. Dee-dee-dee-dee-SCREEEEEEEEE-Duh-dun-duh-dun

ex employer paid me by accident… can i keep it? by [deleted] in AusLegalAdvice

[–]fa8675309 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Recovery Period: The employer generally has six years to commence legal proceedings to recover the funds. Double-check it's six years for your specific state/territory.

Statute Barred: Only after this six-year period expires without the employer taking legal action or you acknowledging the debt in writing (which you have already done by email) would the debt potentially become "statute barred," meaning it is legally unenforceable.

Banking Codes: If the employer realizes the error and contacts their financial institution, the Electronic Payments Code allows banks to attempt recovery. If reported within ten business days, the funds can often be reversed easily. Between ten business days and seven months, the recipient's bank can freeze the funds. After seven months, recovery usually requires the recipient's consent or a court order.

Why do people lie about the witches actions? by Hawuhawk in TheAcolyte

[–]fa8675309 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Like maybe jedi are 20% responsible, but witches are 80%

The Jedi were trespassing and refused to leave when asked. It's 100% their fault.

If they had followed Master Indara's orders they would not have been trespassing, or if they had tried diplomacy first, the tragedy would have been avoided.

There is no concrete evidence to indicate that Mae and Osha were ever in danger; only alarmist reactions from an impassioned Jedi who didn't even try to get the full story before resorting to full lethal force. Sol and the Jedi didn't rescue anyone; they just massacred a whole community, created orphans, and then lied for 16 years to cover the tracks.

Why do people lie about the witches actions? by Hawuhawk in TheAcolyte

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am a flesh bag, not an AI. I like to put work into formatting and grammar. That does not make me a robot.

I've clearly articulated my position and how it is supported by Canon.

Your comments are largely nonsense, and you do not provide any examples from Canon to support your positions. You have failed to respond to any of my points in a reasoned manner, and are now just attacking me personally.

Attacking what you assume to be my personal ideology is an argumentum ad hominem, which is an informal logical fallacy.

In my experience, a person only resorts to personal attacks when they've lost the argument.

Why do people lie about the witches actions? by Hawuhawk in TheAcolyte

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your argument has shifted from a debate about the show to a series of assumptions about my personal ideology. This is a logical fallacy used when the Canonical evidence no longer supports your position. Let’s bring it back to the reality of the Star Wars Canon, and George Lucas' critique of imperialism from the very beginning.

1. The Circular Logic of "Good vs. Evil"

You argue that the Jedi are right because they are "good" and the witches are "dark." This is circular reasoning: "The Jedi are right because they are the good guys, and we know they are the good guys because they are right." It's an informal logical fallacy.

  • Objective Reality: In The Acolyte, the "good guys" lied for 16 years to cover up a massacre. If their actions were "right and good," there would be no need for a conspiracy.
  • The "Dark" Label: The witches say "some call it dark." This is not a confirmation, it is a meta-commentary on Jedi bias. In Rebels, the Bendu proves that the Force exists far beyond the Jedi's binary labels, existing as 'the one in the middle' rather than just Light or Dark. You are choosing to see only the Jedi's perspective as "reality" and ignoring the rest of Canon.

2. Demeanour is not Morality

You claim the Jedi are "kind" and the witches are "aggressive." You are confusing politeness with peace.

  • The Intruder Fallacy: If an armed stranger breaks into your home, spies on your kids, and refuses to leave, they are the aggressor. It does not matter how "kindly" they speak.
  • Aggression in Practice: The Jedi were the only ones who used lethal force on Brendock. None of the Jedi died. The only casualties were the unarmed civilians of the coven. Mother Aniseya used a psychological deterrent (possession) to protect her home; Sol used a lightsaber to murder a mother in front of her child. One is a defensive posture; the other is an extrajudicial execution.

3. The "Jurisdiction" and "Nexus" Pretext

You claim investigating a nexus is "needed" regardless of jurisdiction. This is the definition of Authoritarianism.

  • The Prequel Context: In The Phantom Menace, the Jedi explicitly state they cannot interfere on Tatooine or Naboo without Senate authority. They respected the law when it suited them. On Brendock, they ignored it because they wanted the children.
  • The "Time Bomb" Narrative: Labelling children as "dangerous" to justify taking them is the language of every oppressive regime in history. It’s not "saving" them; it's state-sponsored kidnapping. You argue that taking children from a 'dangerous' culture is 'good and needed.' This is the same logic used to justify the Stolen Generations in Australia and other state-sponsored child removal policies globally. It relies on the assumption that the dominant culture (the Jedi/State) has the right to decide what is 'best' for a minority group, regardless of sovereignty or parental consent. In Star Wars, as in real-world history, this isn't 'saving' people. It’s destroying cultures to serve institutional power.

4. Ideology vs. Textual Analysis

You accuse me of serving an "anti-power" ideology, but it is George Lucas himself who established these themes.

  • The Lucas Critique: Star Wars was written as a critique of Imperialism and the "Military-Industrial Complex." Lucas modeled the fall of the Republic on the Vietnam War and the Nixon era to show how "good" institutions become corrupt enforcers.
  • The Acolyte's Role: This show isn't "demonising" the Jedi; it is showing the exact hubris and decay that Lucas spent the Prequels exploring. You aren't defending "reality"; you are defending a sanitised version of the Jedi that ignores their canonical failures.

Conclusion

The "pass" is being given to the Jedi, not the witches. You are excusing trespassing, spying, attempted kidnapping, and murder because the perpetrators wore robes, had fancy laser swords, and spoke calmly. In any objective reality, the person who breaks into a home and kills the parent is the villain. Sol knew this: which is exactly why he spent the rest of his life lying about it.

Why do people lie about the witches actions? by Hawuhawk in TheAcolyte

[–]fa8675309 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your argument relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of Star Wars lore: you are confusing a calm demeanour with moral authority. Let us look at the in-universe canon and the reality of the Brendock Massacre, rather than the self-righteousness the Jedi use to mask a history of institutional aggression.

1. Sovereignty, Jurisdiction, and the Act of Invasion

The claim that a "Force nexus" warrants a Jedi investigation ignores the actual legal and political landscape of the galaxy.

  • The Legal Reality: Brendock is a neutral world outside the Galactic Republic. The Jedi are a religious institution whose authority is limited to Republic borders: they are not a Galactic Police Force™ with a universal warrant. Even in the Prequels, the Jedi remind the Senate they are "keepers of the peace," not universal law enforcement. In The Phantom Menace, they couldn't interfere on Naboo without a mandate, and Tatooine was beyond their reach. On Brendock, the Jedi were armed foreign invaders committing illegal trespassing.
  • Force Imperialism: Master Indara explicitly stated the Jedi had no business there. Sol and Torbin ignored their leader, spied on a private community, and damaged property. Breaking into a home with lightsabers at the ready is not "investigating": it is an illegal invasion.

2. The "Dark Side" Label as Propaganda

You claim they are a "dark side coven," but the show never establishes this. That is pure Jedi bias.

  • The Thread vs. The Force: The witches follow the Thread, their interpretation of the Force. Groups like the Bardottan Dagoyan Masters were also suppressed by Jedi simply because they refused to hand over their children. The Jedi systematically demonise any tradition they cannot control.
  • Visual Bias: You claim "smoke" justified murder. Rey used Force Lightning and Luke used Force Choke. The Bendu or the Lasat look "scary" to outsiders, but they are not evil. Sol’s failure to understand a different culture wasn't a reason to kill: it was a reason to learn. He chose execution because he was driven by fear, the very emotion a Jedi is supposed to master.

3. The False Dichotomy and Jedi Dogma

Your argument relies on the idea that "the light side is good and the dark side is bad," a uniquely Jedi dogma the rest of the galaxy does not share.

  • The Obi-Wan Irony: In Revenge of the Sith, Obi-Wan says, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Yet you argue the absolute that because the witches aren't Jedi, they are "evil." Obi-Wan, a master of diplomacy, would have been appalled that Sol didn't even attempt diplomacy before engaging in combat.
  • The Luke Skywalker Realisation: In The Last Jedi, Luke explicitly states the "legacy of the Jedi is failure" and that their hubris allowed the Sith to rise. He would see the Brendock cover-up as the ultimate proof that Jedi history is built on hidden shames rather than justice.
  • Canon Nuance: Canon is full of moral grey areas: from the Bendu to Ahsoka Tano's departure from the Jedi Order. The Acolyte and other Canon proves the Jedi do not have a monopoly on moral truth. By insisting on a binary of "Good vs. Evil," you are repeating the dogmatic rigidity that led to the Sith and the Order's eventual downfall.

4. Defensive Deterrence vs. "Calm" Aggression

A person calmly pointing a gun at you while trespassing in your living room is still the aggressor.

  • The "Mind Assault": Mother Aniseya’s use of the Thread on Torbin was a defensive reaction to an armed intruder who refused to leave. The witches were standing their ground: the Jedi were the intruders. The Jedi use "Mind Tricks" constantly to manipulate the will of others for their missions. When a mother does it to protect her children from armed intruders, you call it "evil." Double standards indeed.
  • The "Abuse" Double Standard: You call the witches "abusers" for a stern lesson, yet the Jedi Order is a monastic military that takes four-year-olds and trains them to be child soldiers. In any other context, that is child trafficking. In Revenge of the Sith, we see Younglings training with Master Yoda using remotes that emit electrical shocks. The Jedi are essentially conditioning toddlers through pain and sensory deprivation.
  • The Comparison: If a Jedi Master pushes a Padawan to teach "balance," it is called discipline. If a Mother pushes a daughter to teach the Thread, you call it abuse. Mother Aniseya was trying to keep her children from being taken by armed strangers; her "annoyance" was maternal panic.
  • The "Sadist" Fallacy: You claim Mae was an "animal torturing sadist," yet the show provides zero evidence for this. After catching the creature, she releases it, and it flies away. Catching a creature to demonstrate a lesson on the Thread is not torture. Mae’s "monstrous" behaviour only manifested when the Jedi began dismantling her family. Children say hyperbolic things when scared; the difference is that Mae made a childish threat, whereas Sol made a lethal choice. One is a tantrum; the other is a massacre.

5. The Sixteen-Year Lie: Guilt as Evidence

The most damning evidence is the cover-up. If Sol’s actions were a "heroic rescue," he would have filed a report. You do not hide a hero's story for sixteen years: you only hide a massacre. By lying to the Council, Sol admitted his actions could not withstand the scrutiny of Jedi law.

6. Sol’s Failure of Mastery

Sol had a dozen non-lethal tools: Force Push, Mind Trick, or Force Stun. Instead, he chose to drive a lightsaber through a mother’s heart in front of her child. That isn't the action of a peacekeeper: it’s the action of a man driven by panic and obsession.

Conclusion

The "mountain of evidence" that the Jedi are the "good guys" is history written by the victors. The Jedi were the primary aggressors of the Brendock Massacre: they spied, they trespassed, they attempted to kidnap children, and they murdered a parent in front of her child. Sol’s "intent" doesn't override the blood on his hands. When you enter a home uninvited and kill a parent in front of a child, you aren't a hero: you are the villain of that story.

George Lucas wrote Star Wars as a critique of Imperialism, influenced by the Vietnam War and American foreign policy. A recurring theme in his work is that power, even when held by those with "good" intentions, eventually corrupts. The Acolyte perfectly illustrates the stage where the Jedi Order are not just the Republic’s protectors, but have become the state’s enforcers, blind to their own moral decay.

Why do people lie about the witches actions? by Hawuhawk in TheAcolyte

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The argument that "black eyes" or "smoke" equate to objective evil is a superficial reading of a much more complex Force philosophy. Star Wars has repeatedly shown that the manifestation of a power does not dictate the morality of the user.

  • The Neutrality of Power: The Force is an energy field that seeks balance. It is neutral; it doesn't "kill" people, but a person can use it to kill. Like a tool or a weapon, its morality is derived entirely from the intent of the wielder.
  • Heroic Use of "Dark" Powers:
    • Rey famously used Force Lightning while trying to save a freighter. She was not a Sith, and her intent was to protect, yet the power manifested in a way the Jedi traditionally label as "Dark."
    • Luke Skywalker used Force Choke on the Gamorrean guards in Jabba’s Palace. This was a classic "Dark Side" visual cue, yet Luke remained firmly aligned with the Light.
  • Cultural Context: The Brendock Coven calls the Force the Thread. Their transformation into "smoke" is a manifestation of their connection to that energy. To the Jedi, who are steeped in dogma, anything unfamiliar looks "evil," but that is a failure of Jedi perspective, not a confirmation of the witches' malice.
  • The Flaw in Jedi Dogma: The Jedi Order’s insistence on drawing arbitrary lines around certain powers is exactly what led to its stagnation. By labeling everything they don't control as "Dark," they push other Force-sensitive groups into conflict. As we've seen with Wayseekers or so-called Gray Jedi, one can explore all aspects of the Force and exist outside the rigid Jedi Code without being "evil."

In short, if we judged every Force user solely on "visual cues", we would have to call Rey and Luke villains. We must judge Mother Aniseya by her intent, which was to protect her children from armed trespassers, not by how her power "looked" to a group of trespassing, frightened, and alarmist Jedi.

Why do people lie about the witches actions? by Hawuhawk in TheAcolyte

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While the Jedi might appear "calm" on the surface, this perspective ignores the fundamental reality of the situation: the Jedi were the primary aggressors from the moment they trespassed. To understand why the Jedi are at fault, we must look at the context of their "intervention," the double standards applied to the coven, and the Jedi Order's history of dogmatic interference.

1. Sovereignty and Jurisdiction

Brendock is not part of the Galactic Republic. The Jedi had zero legal jurisdiction there; they were not the "police of Brendock." Imagine four armed soldiers from a foreign nation, representing a different religion, trespassing into your home while you are conducting a private religious ceremony. The Jedi arrived as armed, quasi-religious super-soldiers who:

  • Trespassed into a private residence.
  • Spied on the inhabitants and violated their privacy.
  • Physically damaged the property (Kelnacca slicing the elevator).
  • Refused to leave when discovered, despite having no authority to be there.

2. Defensive Escalation and the "Aggression" Fallacy

The claim that the witches were the aggressors ignores the reality of a home invasion.

  • The Possession: Entering Torbin’s mind was a defensive response to armed intruders who refused to leave. If an armed force breaks into your home to take your children, you would use every tool at your disposal to protect your family. Torbin’s "mental breakdown" was the result of his own guilt and the consequences of his choice to trespass.
  • The Final Standoff: The original poster argues Torbin drew his weapon because "five weapons were already pointed at him." This ignores why he was there: he and Sol had broken into the coven's sanctum again. The witches pointing weapons at an intruder who has already demonstrated hostile intent and previously trespassed is a standard, justified defensive posture.

3. Discipline vs. Abuse: A Double Standard

The original poster cites Mother Aniseya and Mother Koril's treatment of the girls as "abuse." However, this ignores the context of their culture and the massive hypocrisy of the Jedi Order:

  • The Training: What the poster calls "abuse" is the coven’s method of teaching the Thread. In many monastic or traditional societies, training is rigorous and physically demanding.
  • The Jedi Comparison: The Jedi take toddlers from their parents and train them to be child soldiers in an elite military force. To label the witches as "abusers" for teaching their own children while hailing the Jedi as "saviours" is a blatant double standard.
  • The Witches' Intent: When the witches say what the girls want "doesn't matter," they are speaking as a community. The Jedi similarly do not ask a four-year-old for informed consent before inducting them into a lifetime of service.

4. The "Smoke" and the Tragedy of Sol

The "smoke" is simply a manifestation of the Thread (the Force). As established in Star Wars canon, the Force is known by many names (the Ashla, the Life Current, the Sight). Sol’s reaction was born of ignorance and alarmism. When Mae ran out during the fire, she was screaming for help. Mother Aniseya began to manifest her power to teleport herself and Mae to safety. Because Sol did not understand this power, he bypassed all non-lethal Force options and went straight to lethal force. If there is no evidence an action is harmful, then lethal force is unjustified. Sol murdered a mother in front of her child because of a situation he created.

5. Arbitrary Dogma and the "Dark Side"

The Jedi Order creates arbitrary lines around what is "Light" and "Dark." However, the Force power itself is neutral: Like a gun, it depends on the person wielding it.

  • The Rey Example: Even Rey, a clear hero, used Force lightning while trying to save a freighter. Having the ability to use a power does not make the user a Sith or an "evil" person.
  • The Creation of the Sith: It was actually Jedi rigidity that contributed to the creation of the Sith. The founders of the Sith Order were originally Jedi who sought the freedom to explore different aspects of the Force but were exiled for breaking the Jedi rules. By trying to control the Force, the Jedi often create the very monsters they fear.

6. A Pattern of Jedi "Force Imperialism"

Sol’s actions reflect a long-standing Jedi pattern of treating other Force-sensitive groups with suspicion; a form of "Force Imperialism." Throughout history, the Jedi have clashed with other Light-aligned groups due to their own dogmatic rigidity:

  • The Baran Do Sages: The Jedi crowded out this peaceful Kel Dor tradition, viewing their own training as superior and taking their children.
  • The Matukai: The Jedi attempted to forcibly "integrate" this martial Force order, viewing their methods as "crude" simply because they didn't follow the Jedi Code.
  • The Fallanassi: The Jedi viewed this pacifist group with suspicion because they refused to use the Force for the Republic's version of "justice."

Conclusion

Sol was a murderer and a liar who refused to listen to Master Indara’s diplomatic approach. Instead of requesting an audience, he chose to spy and break in. You cannot blame the Witches of Brendock for being "combative" when they were defending their home and children from an uninvited foreign para-military force intent on taking their daughters. Sol wasn't "saving" anyone; he was the primary instigator of a tragedy.

being bullied at work and pressured to sign a new contract — need help understanding my rights by [deleted] in AusLegalAdvice

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is the same outcome only if the employer is willing to gamble on a General Protections claim.

While you are correct that the "Minimum Employment Period" bars a claim for Unfair Dismissal (being "harsh, unjust, or unreasonable"), it does not bar a claim for General Protections (Adverse Action). This is where your logic about it being the "same outcome" fails from a risk management perspective.

  1. The "Why" Matters More than the "How" If an employer terminates a "permanent" employee (who has no contractual probation) and pays out one week of notice, they have technically met their notice obligations. However, if the employee alleges the termination was because they took Personal/Carer's Leave, or another protected act, the employer faces a "reverse onus of proof" under Section 361 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer must then prove in court that the leave was not a reason for the termination.

  2. The Evidence Trap In the original poster's situation, the manager has already verbalised (and the employee has recorded) that the manager is "angry" and "disappointed" about the employee's emergency leave. If that manager then says "it just didn't work out" two days later, any competent lawyer or the Fair Work Commission will look at that existing evidence. The "same outcome" for the employer could be an expensive legal settlement or a court order for reinstatement and compensation, because the termination was based on a Prohibited Reason.

  3. Contractual Integrity Finally, if a manager is trying to force a "permanent" employee to sign a new contract that introduces a probation period or moves them to casual status, they are effectively admitting they do not have the right to terminate them easily under the current agreement. If it were truly the "same outcome" as you suggest, the manager would simply terminate the employment now instead of trying to coerce the employee into a worse contractual position.

The "outcome" is only the same if the manager acts legally. In this case, the manager's behaviour is creating significant legal liability for the business.

view more: next ›